However, despite the growing enthusiasm there has already been one major
hiccup. The record drought that has been plaguing the U.S. Southeast is
threatening to cripple
the nuclear industry in this region, as many of the plants require large
amounts of water.

Now, a new research study, conducted by Physicist Joshua Pearce of Clarion
University of Pennsylvania puts another dent in nuclear efforts.
Professor Pearce's research, published in Inderscience's International Journal
of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, indicates that while nuclear
research and small-scale growth remain promising, large scale growth remains
non-viable.

Professor Pearce is actually an advocate for nuclear power. He warns that
his research should not be misinterpreted. Professor Pearce suggests that
the nuclear power industry focuses its efforts on improving
efficiency. He gives two easy ways to accomplish this. The
first is to utilize only the highest grade ores, saving on refining energy
costs. Secondly, he suggests the industry adopt gas centrifuge technology
for ore enrichment, which is considerably more efficient than the currently
used gaseous diffusion methods.

Professor Pearce feels that plants must also adopt technology for capturing and
distributing their waste heat. He points out that nuclear plants dump
large amounts of heat into their surroundings, a practice which both wastes energy
and can cause significant harm to the environment. Professor Pearce believes
that current nuclear
weapon stockpiles worldwide should be dismantled and their nuclear fuel
"down-blended". He points out that this could produce a bounty
of nuclear fuel.

The not-so-good news which Professor Pearce points out is that nuclear is
simply not a viable candidate for large-scale growth. In order for
nuclear power to maintain growing future power demands and the shrinking fossil
fuel power supplies, between 2010 and 2050 a growth rate of over 10 percent a
year would be necessary according to Professor Pearce. This, he says, is
simply not possible.

Professor Pearce points out that such a growth program would simply cannibalize
older plant's power output to provide the power needed to maintain the
processes involved with building the new plants and refining ore for them,
leaving no power for human needs. Large-scale growth would require
massive power investment in terms of plant construction, plant operation,
mining infrastructure expansion, and energy investments to refine ore.
Professor Pearce says the books simply don't balance -- these power needs could
not be met by the energy produced from the refined ore.

He points to a significant problem with large scale growth. Large-scale
growth, barring the discovery of new reserves would necessitate the use of
lower grade uranium. This sets an additional limit on growth. As
Professor Pearce points out, "The limit of uranium ore grade to offset
greenhouse gas emissions is significantly higher than the purely thermodynamic
limit set by the energy payback time."

Professor Pearce also points out to environmentalists and global warming
skeptics alike that nuclear power is hardly an "emission-free
panacea", as he puts it. All aspects of plant operation, including
plant construction, mining/milling of uranium ores, fuel conversion, enrichment,
fabrication, operation, decommissioning, and long-term and short-term waste
disposal, require massive amounts of energy provided by fossil fuels. The
burning of these fossil fuels will create large
amounts of greenhouse emissions, a criticism oft-leveled against the solar
and wind power industries by nuclear advocates.

While emissions are certainly troublesome, the simple energy requirements
infeasibility, if accurate, would almost certainly nix the large scale
expansion of nuclear power in its current form. If Professor Pearce's
research withstands the test of review then it offers little choice but to
pursue his suggested strategies -- develop more
advanced nuclear power on a smaller scale and pursue other alternative
energy solutions as a major source of capacity.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

It certainly can produce more of the world's energy, but it can't produce all of it. I remember my professor saying things like scheduling generators and such is difficult and must be done carefully to avoid poisoning the fuel. If the load people used was static nuclear would be a much better solution, but the power system is only stable so long as the energy it produces is used up in load (or pumped storage and such). This is why power companies like reliable sources of energy.

Poisoning occurs when a plant's production is lowered by a lot abruptly. It is the result of Zenon gas forming- which halts the fission reaction- the fuel itself isn't "poisoned."Regulation of power levels through moderators such as boric-acid in the coolant is probably a more prevalent technique then shoving in the control-rods when power isn't needed. People don't throw water on a fire when it gets to warm- you spread the logs out, or don't continue to stoke- this analogy is somewhat fitting with fission processes.